By a nearly 2 – to – 1 margin, Louisiana voters last month rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have, among other things, eliminated state trust funds that support education programs and used those dollars to replace annual teacher stipends. Despite this reality, the House Education Committee advanced a similar teacher pay proposal on Wednesday. The Times-Picayune | Baton Rouge Advocate’s Elyse Carmosino reports: 

It’s still unclear whether teachers could expect to receive any additional compensation this year, however, as the public vote needed to approve the raise would likely not happen before the next school year begins. … Many opponents of the previous attempt argued that the tradeoff – diverting millions of dollars that help fund dozens of state education efforts each year – was too great. Others said that because the raises would not be built into the state’s education funding formula, they would lack protection, allowing lawmakers to later use the funds for other projects.

Reality check: Reviving a proposal that 65% of voters recently rejected is not the only way to give teachers a much-deserved raise. The Legislature is currently in a fiscal session where they can raise enough revenue to fund priorities, such as increasing teacher salaries. 

The impact of tariffs

President Donald Trump’s tariffs would raise taxes for all income groups, but the biggest increase would fall on the poorest Americans. That’s the conclusion of a new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ITEP’s staff explains how different income groups will be affected if the president’s current tariffs are still in effect next year: 

  • For the poorest fifth of Americans, who will have incomes of less than $29,000 in 2026, the tariffs will impose a tax increase equal to 6.2 percent of their income that year.
  • For the middle fifth of Americans, who will have incomes between $55,000 and $94,000 in 2026, the tariffs will impose a tax increase equal to 5.0 percent of their income.
  • The richest 1 percent, who will have incomes of more than about $915,000, will face a smaller tax increase relative to their income, just 1.7 percent.

Low-income renters can’t get housing vouchers

The typical American renter is “rent burdened,” meaning they must pay at least 30% of their monthly income to afford an average rent. Federally subsidized housing vouchers, known as Section 8, are intended to provide relief to these exorbitant costs. But as The New York Times’ Samantha Latson reports, many low-income renters aren’t able to access this crucial support: 

But according to a new study by Zillow, the available vouchers are lagging far behind demand. The study, which analyzed U.S. Census Bureau and HUD data from 2023, showed that there were almost 17 million more rent-burdened households than there were available vouchers. Overall, the total number of vouchers increased only slightly after the pandemic — from 2.53 million in 2020 to 2.65 million in 2023 — even as the demand for rentals escalated.

Not all low-income renters are eligible for Section 8 vouchers, and even those lucky enough to get a voucher have no guarantee that it will let them find an affordable place to live. 

Section 8 vouchers come with strict requirements, so not every low-income renter is eligible. And crucially, even people who get one may not be able to use it: Voucher recipients are not protected under the Fair Housing Act, meaning landlords can automatically reject applications from voucher holders. Now, as the Trump administration aims to cut the HUD budget, there is concern that the gap will only grow.

Targets on civil rights rules and college accreditation

President Donald Trump signed executive orders on Wednesday that, among other things, would affect civil rights rules and college accreditation. One of the orders targets “disparate impact” – a key EPA regulation that focuses on whether pollution disproportionately affects people of a certain race. The Washington Post’s Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Susan Svrluga and Laura Meckler report: 

Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect on people from different groups even if that was not the intent. It relies on data analysis to help identify discriminatory results. … Supporters of disparate-impact analysis say it is a critical tool because finding “smoking gun” evidence to prove someone intended to discriminate is difficult. But conservatives have argued that proving discrimination should require proof that someone intended to treat people differently. 

Trump also targeted the accreditation process for colleges and universities:

Trump is now directing the secretary of education to deny, suspend or terminate the recognition accreditors need from the department to operate if they take into account a college’s diversity. The order mandates the secretary to “realign” accreditation with student-focused principles by requiring institutions to use student outcome data to improve results, without reference to race, ethnicity or sex.

Number of the Day

33% – Proposed Louisiana sales tax for vape products and electronic cigarettes, under House Bill 517 by Rep. Ken Brass. (Source: Louisiana Legislature)